Cook and Trott Out

So no England player has admitted being involved

And Piers Morgan ?! Really - he is an embarrassment and I have no doubt Broad and co did what most do in regards Morgan - ignore him. That man is a disgrace

And couldn't possibly right even though your dislike is clear to see. No smoke and all that. No doubt others were doing it but the perfect excuse to hang KP out to dry
 
Recently, Compton was poorly treated. Robson too. Carberry. All openers. Weren't seen to be the 'right' opening partner for Cook.

Graham Onions - was worthy of a place but somehow lost out to other trundlers when he was one of the top wicket takers.

Darren Pattinson (thankfully :D)

"Horrifically" treated though ?

Carberry don't believe is ever good enough - same with Robson and agree that Compton should have played more

Onions was play for England until suffered with injuries

Yes England just like all the other test teams have not picked the right players and picked the wrong ones and they will all continue to do so but " horrifically" treated though ?
 
Simple question.

What has Cook ever done to suggest he should be captain?

Not talking about his playing ability. Just that there was nothing in his past record to suggest he had the necessary leadership qualities or tactical nous.

A strange choice from the outset I thought and nothing we have seen since suggests otherwise. It is always good for a captain to consult on the field but it appears that England have three or four other players who think they know better and Cook seems incapable of imposing his will upon them and, therefore, the rest of the team.
 
Simple question.

What has Cook ever done to suggest he should be captain?

Well Giles Clarke, ECB Chairman at the time, said that Alastair Cook "and his family are very much the sort of people we want the England captain and his family to be".

Which pretty much sums up the old boys network to a tee.
 
Simple question.

What has Cook ever done to suggest he should be captain?

Not talking about his playing ability. Just that there was nothing in his past record to suggest he had the necessary leadership qualities or tactical nous.

A strange choice from the outset I thought and nothing we have seen since suggests otherwise. It is always good for a captain to consult on the field but it appears that England have three or four other players who think they know better and Cook seems incapable of imposing his will upon them and, therefore, the rest of the team.

This was the first test squad announced after Strauss retired - bearing in mind that Cook had already successfully filled in for Strauss in a Test Series in Bangladesh


Alastair Cook
Stuart Broad
James Anderson
Jonny Bairstow
Ian Bell
Tim Bresnan
Nick Compton
Steven Finn
Graham Onions
Eoin Morgan
Monty Panesar
Samit Patel
Kevin Pietersen
Matt Prior
Joe Root
Graeme Swann
Jonathan Trott

So who else should have been skipper ?

I believe he then skippered the Team to their first test Series victory on Indian Soil for two decades

Draw against New Zealand away

Then we beat New Zealand at home

We won the Ashes at home

defeat to the Aussies away - and then lost a two test series to Sri Lanka

Followed up by beating India and drawing with West Indies

So he overall record as captain is not bad at all - in fact compared to a lot of captains over the past 3 decades its pretty good

Its one bad test series away from home in Australia and he certainly isnt the first England captain that happened too.

So looking at the facts - it seems that he was a good choice of captain and i certainly cant remember many other stand out choices around at the time ?
 
Results have to be put in context.

India have not been a force in Test cricket since the advent of the IPL and the victorious series against Australia was achieved against a team in transition.

His performance as captain against West Indies was poor, reactive rather than pro-active.
 
Results have to be put in context.

India have not been a force in Test cricket since the advent of the IPL and the victorious series against Australia was achieved against a team in transition.

His performance as captain against West Indies was poor, reactive rather than pro-active.

Where India not 2nd in the test rankings when we won away ?

So do we dismiss all the two previous ashes wins as well

You can't dismiss the results - they are what matters.

So who should have been captain instead of Cook when he was given the job ?
 
You can't dismiss the results - they are what matters.

So who should have been captain instead of Cook when he was given the job ?

Absolutely agree Phil, results are all that matter but even I could've captained that team to a similar set of results. With Cook, Trott and Pietersen all scoring stacks of runs and Broad, Swann and Anderson taking wickets he didn't need to be a great captain.

I agree with MM that he is too reactive and I also think he is too negative. Too many times have had the opposition on the back foot and haven't finished them off.

He's definitely one of England's best batsman when in form but he isn't a great captain.
 
Absolutely agree Phil, results are all that matter but even I could've captained that team to a similar set of results. With Cook, Trott and Pietersen all scoring stacks of runs and Broad, Swann and Anderson taking wickets he didn't need to be a great captain.

I agree with MM that he is too reactive and I also think he is too negative. Too many times have had the opposition on the back foot and haven't finished them off.

He's definitely one of England's best batsman when in form but he isn't a great captain.

So who should have been captain ?

Cook can never win then can he - win and it's down to the oppo being poor or his players playing well

Lose and it's poor captaincy

Who are the other candidates to be England captain right now
 
So who should have been captain ?

Cook can never win then can he - win and it's down to the oppo being poor or his players playing well

Lose and it's poor captaincy

Who are the other candidates to be England captain right now

At that time it wouldn't have mattered who they made captain because the team was playing so well. As long as that person had the ability to toss a coin we would've won more than we lost.

It's very rare that a captain's decisions are directly responsible for a win or loss but I can think of several times when Cook being negative has led to a draw when in my opinion he should've pushed harder for a win.

Can you give one example of a good piece of captaincy from Cook that has changed a match in England's favour? And I don't mean a bowling change that has led to a wicket as anyone could point to that in any match you look at.
 
At that time it wouldn't have mattered who they made captain because the team was playing so well. As long as that person had the ability to toss a coin we would've won more than we lost.

It's very rare that a captain's decisions are directly responsible for a win or loss but I can think of several times when Cook being negative has led to a draw when in my opinion he should've pushed harder for a win.

Can you give one example of a good piece of captaincy from Cook that has changed a match in England's favour? And I don't mean a bowling change that has led to a wicket as anyone could point to that in any match you look at.

No I can't point to a good piece of captaincy bar what he does on the field in rotate his bowlers - making the changes when needed , field placements conversations with his bowlers , selections , decisions when at the toss - all aspects of captaincy that will help a team win the game

But it's clear that Cook can win the next ten series in a row and still will be a poor captain etc - so it doesn't matter what he does - the trench has been dug - we could win the next two test series and he would get no praise - where as previous captains used to get bucket loads

Or he can lose the next two series due to no fault of his own and be crucified from pillar to post - he hasn't got a prayer right despite his record being no worse than previous captains

Cook has no chance and don't think many will ever be happy until he is gone - irrelevant of the results

So who should be captain right now
 
Strauss has handed #666 to Adam Lyth and #667 to Mark Wood. Wonder who'll get dropped to get Wood in, likely Jordan I'd imagine. Good to see a young bowler getting given a go. I've not seen a lot of him, and he is yet to get to 100 FC wickets, but is getting them at a decent number. Looks like we'll line up:

Cook
Lyth
Ballance
Bell
Root
Moeen
Buttler
Stokes
Broad
Anderson
Wood
 
Good to see Wood is playing. New blood in the bowling dept.

Tricky to answer to LP. The obvious one is Root but do we want to put him under pressure when he is doing so well? There is a bit of a dearth of talent, Bell is not a captain as he would be the other obvious one. James Taylor would be a good one but he needs to play in the team before he can become captain. I don't see any of the current bowlers as candidates. I would change Cook as he is an awful captain in my eyes and I would go for Root. Sorry Joe, although I am sure he would enjoy the increase in wages that comes with the job.
 
Could be an interesting morning this morning with NZ seamers steaming in. The Lords pitch should have a bit in it, in the last FC game there Middlesex and Durham made 89 and 71 respectively!
 
Good to see Wood is playing. New blood in the bowling dept.

Tricky to answer to LP. The obvious one is Root but do we want to put him under pressure when he is doing so well? There is a bit of a dearth of talent, Bell is not a captain as he would be the other obvious one. James Taylor would be a good one but he needs to play in the team before he can become captain. I don't see any of the current bowlers as candidates. I would change Cook as he is an awful captain in my eyes and I would go for Root. Sorry Joe, although I am sure he would enjoy the increase in wages that comes with the job.

And Root's captaincy in any capacity so far ?!

How can someone be such an awful captain yet continue to win tests and series ?

Sorry but it can't happen - if Cook was losing series after series then yes possibly - but he isn't
 
He has not captained anyone but as he has been made the vice captain they clearly see something in him. The next logical step from VC is Captain. If we remove Cook then Root clearly comes next otherwise why give him that position. I don't say he will be a roaring success because none of us know but I think it is worth the risk as actually the risk is pretty small.

Sometimes teams can win despite a captain not because of one. Cook's captaincy lacks innovation and is predictable, dull and overly safe. There are other captains out there who squeeze everything out of their players and make the team a greater sum than the parts. Cook does not come into that category. Let him get on with batting and leave the decisions to someone with a more forward thinking approach.
 
Top